No. 21-8131

Daniel A. Rodriguez v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-06-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process newly-discovered-evidence plea-bargaining post-conviction-relief statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does a silent Plea foreclose a defendant
From filing a Motion for Newls Discovered
Evidence. Pursuant to Rule
33.
Where:
a)
the statute is ambigous. As it does not
directiy Prohibit a defendant that his trial
was in form of a Plea:
6)
his Plea wass
sans
waivers;
the Newly discovered evidence, admitedly.
c)
discovered Post -Sentencings Plea : AppxC
was
(P
the
Constitutional ramifications under Due
PrOCesS:
the Nawly discovered evidence
)
would have
altered the outcome of
the
case:

And where, no other
GPoWaJ
exist.,
,..
9)
Also where neither 4
the Government or the
District Court Oblect to Rule 33 as wrong vehicle.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a Silonk Plea Foraclose a ddfondant From flint a Mlohion For Newly Discovered Evitelone@.

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-05-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 14, 2022)
2022-05-04
Application (21A683) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 3, 2022.
2022-04-27
Application (21A683) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 4, 2022 to June 3, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Daniel A. Rodriguez
Daniel A. Rodriguez — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent